header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 September 2019 / Michael Zander KC
Categories: Features , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

What odds on Boris Johnson losing the Supreme Court case?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
Michael Zander QC on the strength of the argument that proroguing Parliament was unlawful

Retired Supreme Court Justice Lord Sumption has predicted that his former colleagues would probably hold that the prime minister’s prorogation of parliament was not justiciable. That was my view too. But having read Lord Pannick’s written case for Gina Miller, the lead appellant, I have changed my mind. I now think there is a fair chance that the decision will go the other way and reverse the unanimous decision of the Divisional Court given on 6 September by the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the president of the Queen’s Bench Division.

Lord Pannick’s 25-page argument (see the Supreme Court’s website) proceeds in stages:

  • The legal principle of parliamentary sovereignty requires that the executive must comply with the enacted will of Parliament. It is implicit in that legal principle that there must be legal limits on the power of the executive to prevent Parliament from sitting so that
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll